I've lowered my $VPIP, but my win-rate has plummeted. What the hell is going on?

[LevySystem]

Now hopefully this will make things a little clearer. For those who have stated that 18000 is not a big sample: you could draw conclusions from figures a FIFTH of the size of that. In other words 18000 is a huge sample. There are 52 cards in the deck, 6 players, 4 suits and only 10 different possible hands. I worked with just 4000 results to be able to work out how to improve my game drastically. The lines are practically at the same (but opposite) angle to each other at the 4000 point. This means I reversed the gradient purely through changing my play style.

Dude this is just wrong. 18k hands says nothing. I'm not here to argue with you, take the advice or leave it but if we are talking postflopstats 18k is just not a big sample. Also winnings. You could assume if you were a winning player or not but that's it. 18k is affected a lot by variance, check the tool I've send you earlier. As for preflop stats yeah you could say 18k is a decent sample. But then again these stats are so irrelevant most of the time that it doesn't matter. Atleast for your own game. Unless you have massive leaks over there but as stated you have some game knowledge. 100k hands is a samplesize you can start working with. Alltough even that sample is still affected by variance. Atleast here we can somewhat deduct winrates. True winrates can be see at around 500k hands, just for some perspective.

As for 52 cards, yeah lol, that also makes 259890 combos of hands.

I might sound harsh here, wich I don't want to, so please take this with a grain of salt. You might have improved analyzing a sample of 4k hands and getting better for 2 reasons A. You were bad overall and improved trough actually thinking about the game B. Luck, the stats were just pointing in the right direction.

And don't get me wrong, improving is good, by whatever reason, but going crazy over 18k hands is not good.

 

[texasfoldem]

Dude this is just wrong. 18k hands says nothing. I'm not here to argue with you, take the advice or leave it but if we are talking postflopstats 18k is just not a big sample. Also winnings. You could assume if you were a winning player or not but that's it. 18k is affected a lot by variance, check the tool I've send you earlier. As for preflop stats yeah you could say 18k is a decent sample. But then again these stats are so irrelevant most of the time that it doesn't matter. Atleast for your own game. Unless you have massive leaks over there but as stated you have some game knowledge. 100k hands is a samplesize you can start working with. Alltough even that sample is still affected by variance. Atleast here we can somewhat deduct winrates. True winrates can be see at around 500k hands, just for some perspective.

As for 52 cards, yeah lol, that also makes 259890 combos of hands.

I might sound harsh here, wich I don't want to, so please take this with a grain of salt. You might have improved analyzing a sample of 4k hands and getting better for 2 reasons A. You were bad overall and improved trough actually thinking about the game B. Luck, the stats were just pointing in the right direction.

And don't get me wrong, improving is good, by whatever reason, but going crazy over 18k hands is not good.

Sigh... it is better to be a mathematician than to just look on the internet and quote them. Your figure is too short by the way... it is 10 times larger: 2,598,960. The reason for that is that you just quoted it. How about you copy and paste next time?

Now lets put some actual mathematics into this and some common sense:

10200 straights right? That's funny, because the last time I checked there were 8 straights.

8 seems a little lower than 10200 doesn't it? Are you really concerned about your jack of clubs not being as good as you opponent's jack of spades? K-9 is one straight and if that is what you both have, then you share the pot. There are not different versions of it because of suit unless you include straight flush.

Here's another pure common sense thing. Have you actually thought that unless there are 3 of the same suit on the table, then suit does not even come into it AT ALL! Do you even realize how much of your original figure is reduced by that fact alone? Drastically - that is how much. Yes, the only types of hand that takes into account suit are the flush types. If there ain't 3 of the same suit you ain't gonna get beat by flush!

1,098,240 types of pairs right?? The last time I checked there are 13 different types of pair. Of course the kicker comes into play... so you have another 12 possibilities on top of that. If you are playing for a pair on the table then you may just as well consider that you have high card anyway - so that is irrelevant (everyone knows it is as good/ bad as high card). Even if you were to waste your time going through all the different combinations of kickers someone could be holding when playing for a table pair, do you honestly think it will come to over 1 million? ...and who is going to be betting hard on a pair anyway??

Just to top this all off and pinpoint exactly how simple this is (and why you have absolutely no need for the strange website you linked to):

After the flop, with you and one opponent, you know 5 cards out of that pack of 52. You know that 3 of them your opponent has as well. If you are now holding a set of 10s there is a very limited way in which your opponent can win. On a rainbow board, are you going to fold if they go all-in? Do you seriously think anyone is (especially if the opponent is a loose player with VPIP 80)? Indeed there could be a king or ace on there but that could mean your opponent is going for 2 pairs or even TOP pair (super aggressive)!

All you need to know is that you are very likely to win... you do not need a head filled with mathematical nonsense.

 

[hackmeplz]

Look obviously 18k hands is not going to be just random noise, but you're underestimating 2 things:
1. how much noise there will be
2. the fact that these "trends" are not 18k hand stretches, they're more like ~5k hand stretches.

It also seems like you think you understand the math, but to put it bluntly you don't. Does PT have standard deviations? Last I remember a good estimate for 6m cash was 80bb/100 for a standard deviation. This means that for 18k hands you'd see that a 95% confidence interval over 18k hands is +/- 2,146bb. The math is this: 2*sqrt(180*80^2)

I didn't see you mention stakes, but even if this was 100% 2nl a 95% confidence interval is +/- $42.92.

Back on the poker side, rake at those stakes is brutal, so you can't just have a slight edge over your opponents you have to be playing against people who are literally dumping money if you want to make money over the long-term. My guess is you're close to breakeven or slightly winning after rake without tilt, and tilt is causing you to be slightly losing and you're also probably running bad, particularly on the tail end of that sample. Maybe your vpip change impacted your win rate, but there's certainly not enough data here to indicate that.

 

[texasfoldem]

Look obviously 18k hands is not going to be just random noise, but you're underestimating 2 things:
1. how much noise there will be
2. the fact that these "trends" are not 18k hand stretches, they're more like ~5k hand stretches.

It also seems like you think you understand the math, but to put it bluntly you don't. Does PT have standard deviations? Last I remember a good estimate for 6m cash was 80bb/100 for a standard deviation. This means that for 18k hands you'd see that a 95% confidence interval over 18k hands is +/- 2,146bb. The math is this: 2*sqrt(180*80^2)

I didn't see you mention stakes, but even if this was 100% 2nl a 95% confidence interval is +/- $42.92.

Back on the poker side, rake at those stakes is brutal, so you can't just have a slight edge over your opponents you have to be playing against people who are literally dumping money if you want to make money over the long-term. My guess is you're close to breakeven or slightly winning after rake without tilt, and tilt is causing you to be slightly losing and you're also probably running bad, particularly on the tail end of that sample. Maybe your vpip change impacted your win rate, but there's certainly not enough data here to indicate that.

OK, I am reading, and I am taking in what people say (including yours). I do understand variance, I tend to think people do use it too much as a reason. I see the mathematics that you have put in but to be honest it is overly complicated for the issue I was having. Things I said in the post above yours does put things into perspective. People over-rely on over-complicated math. Much of what you do (when you get a good hand like a set) is usually based on the fact that you know you should usually win with it... it should usually win. Even variance corroborates that, rather than the opposite way round.


Obviously Poker does involve math but I think people overstate it. Also, the issue I was seeing contradicts a lot of people who keep talking of "variance". It means almost precisely what it sounds like. Variance is about the inconsistencies. When highly capable math nerds like me see consistency all of sudden for an overly long period of time, the spidey sense starts tingling.

When a mathematician/ logician sees a pattern happen very suddenly then this means that variance is very possibly going out the window. The term variance is the very reason I became very very suspicious of what was going on!

 

[ronn6583]

I have the same thing now.
Coolers and bad beats, and in such situations when you can’t reset.
The fun part is that these hands appear on the river. You can talk a lot about how to properly reset a set or full house, but this is simply not serious.

 

[derpaderp]

Are you value betting bigger with your tighter range? It could be that you’re looking to extract more value now that you have monster hands than before, which would explain some loss when you lose at showdown. Also, I have fewer hands than you, but 2NL is a call fest as opposed to more aware players who are folding to your draws or big made hands instead of coolering you on the river.

 

[TheGenera1]

As mentioned, it's a lolsample. Take no notice of movements over such a short number of hands. Build up a bigger sample size. I had a break even stretch of 50k hands at 2nl zoom the other week, and without boasting, I'm a big winner in these games.

 

[texasfoldem]

I have the same thing now.
Coolers and bad beats, and in such situations when you can’t reset.
The fun part is that these hands appear on the river. You can talk a lot about how to properly reset a set or full house, but this is simply not serious.

Hey, can you tell me how many hands you are talking about? Are you talking of several 1000?

I am still in the middle of testing something. I have actually got my upward winning curve again when I changed one single thing. I think you are going to have to be talking about several 1000 though. I think there are a lot of people on here who really do not understand variance. They seem to have things backwards.

I think what people are doing is applying variance in a way that is not appropriate. Patterns can still be seen in much smaller numbers especially when you know the context. In addition to that, on the flip side, too many sources on the internet are saying there is rigging but they are not showing enough data or patterns. Their claims of rigging are simply not plausible. Essentially speaking they are just creating red herrings and reducing the plausibility of people who actually do identify problems.

 

[rocket190]

my opinion is that you need a longer distance in order to draw any conclusions, and not enough information (so I understand the showdown chart?)

 

[Rcg00]

It takes a long time for something like a set to come along. Things like full houses should be rare. For someone to have a full house better than yours is very rare. It is happening with such frequency that it is borderline humorous. It would be humorous if I were not losing all my money because of it.

Downswings are painful.

Sounds like you've reached your mental limit for now. Take a break for a few days and watch some videos, review your database, etc. Come back when your pulse has come back down to normal.

Cooler hands feel impossible but they do happen. If you truly don't trust the online poker software to be on the up and up, you should definitely cash out immediately. You don't owe anyone any proof. Otherwise just keep working at it when you're in your best state of mind, review your sessions, and repeat.

 

[texasfoldem]

Downswings are painful.

Sounds like you've reached your mental limit for now. Take a break for a few days and watch some videos, review your database, etc. Come back when your pulse has come back down to normal.

Cooler hands feel impossible but they do happen. If you truly don't trust the online poker software to be on the up and up, you should definitely cash out immediately. You don't owe anyone any proof. Otherwise just keep working at it when you're in your best state of mind, review your sessions, and repeat.

I didn't actually stop playing. I moved to another site and it went back to normal again. Admittedly I have not played a huge amount of hands, however, moving to that new site brought my winnings back to what they were.

I am not being stupid here. I am still trying to look for reasons why I am back on track just by moving sites. I highly doubt it was a coincidence but something about moving from pokerstars to 888 immediately made me start winning again. It feels like a completely different game because if I get something like a set now it usually wins. It is not just flush or straight every few hands.

 

[TheGenera1]

Pokerstars is the biggest site in the industry and players have been winning there for well over a decade and a half. If something was wrong, then it would have been noticed by now. I certainly feel it's the safest site to play on. The competition is also the toughest in the online world, it could be why you started winning when you moved sites. Easier player pool.

It's 100% not rigged, and your sample size is unfortunately way too small to draw any conclusions. I suspect you call too much post flop with big hands when there are better hands on the board. IE, calling with a flush when the board is paired, calling with a straight when there is a flush; calling with the lower end of a straight, and overplaying big pocket pairs. These are the usual reasons people lose with "big" hands.

Best of luck at the tables.

 

[texasfoldem]

Pokerstars is the biggest site in the industry and players have been winning there for well over a decade and a half. If something was wrong, then it would have been noticed by now. I certainly feel it's the safest site to play on. The competition is also the toughest in the online world, it could be why you started winning when you moved sites. Easier player pool.

It's 100% not rigged, and your sample size is unfortunately way too small to draw any conclusions. I suspect you call too much post flop with big hands when there are better hands on the board. IE, calling with a flush when the board is paired, calling with a straight when there is a flush; calling with the lower end of a straight, and overplaying big pocket pairs. These are the usual reasons people lose with "big" hands.

Best of luck at the tables.

Actually there are a lot less fish on 888 - I really have to table pick on 888 Poker. SO many tables are so full of fish at PokerStars that table picking isn't that big an issue. It is a tougher game on 888, but more rewarding because the odds are more plausible (at least compared to PokerStars since the beginning of April). It became so stupid at that point on PokerStars that it felt a waste of time even bothering with anything. 90% of good hands were being beaten by complete newbs because the winning hand rank just went insane.


It may not seem it but I am keeping an open mind. It was not my play style that had gone wrong though (apparently). I carefully looked at all that was going on. My play had become more proficient.

Recently I have been watching the hand win rate on a table simulator. I am currently writing a program because I need to be able to generate hundreds of 1000s of hands and see what is a usual winning hand at showdown. At least with that you can see what any one person is likely to have at any given showdown. One thing I do know for sure is that being tight and aggressive is exceedingly important because when you have a 7 card hand with 5 being shared there are obviously quite a few good hands that come up.

As I said what was happening at the beginning of April at PStars was implausible. Just looking at stats is not going to reveal much. It was the patterns that I was finding implausible. I am a bit of a nerd and my background includes fault diagnosis, computing and math(s). Some people see patterns where there are none, and some don't see them when they do exist.

 

[hackmeplz]

Lol this is just hilarious. You basically are saying you are smarter than everyone else and understand math and statistics better than everyone else but then you called my variance calculation that you'd learn in a basic high school stats class overly complicated, and it's clear you don't actually understand math or poker all that well. You're literally convinced after a small sample of nano-stakes on a few sites that the most legit site in the world has patterns that you can't articulate despite having a "background" in both computing and math. Convenient how since you can't explain it, you end up with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Maybe if you were smarter and a bit better at computing you could crack the pattern and exploit the fact that you and you alone were able to figure out the differing frequencies in the pokerstars rng and use that to make millions .

 

[TheGenera1]

Actually there are a lot less fish on 888 - I really have to table pick on 888 Poker. SO many tables are so full of fish at PokerStars that table picking isn't that big an issue. It is a tougher game on 888, but more rewarding because the odds are more plausible (at least compared to PokerStars since the beginning of April). It became so stupid at that point on PokerStars that it felt a waste of time even bothering with anything. 90% of good hands were being beaten by complete newbs because the winning hand rank just went insane.


It may not seem it but I am keeping an open mind. It was not my play style that had gone wrong though (apparently). I carefully looked at all that was going on. My play had become more proficient.

Recently I have been watching the hand win rate on a table simulator. I am currently writing a program because I need to be able to generate hundreds of 1000s of hands and see what is a usual winning hand at showdown. At least with that you can see what any one person is likely to have at any given showdown. One thing I do know for sure is that being tight and aggressive is exceedingly important because when you have a 7 card hand with 5 being shared there are obviously quite a few good hands that come up.

As I said what was happening at the beginning of April at PStars was implausible. Just looking at stats is not going to reveal much. It was the patterns that I was finding implausible. I am a bit of a nerd and my background includes fault diagnosis, computing and math(s). Some people see patterns where there are none, and some don't see them when they do exist.

You don't need to develop a programme, one exists called Flopzilla. There are free trials you can use.

Lol this is just hilarious. You basically are saying you are smarter than everyone else and understand math and statistics better than everyone else but then you called my variance calculation that you'd learn in a basic high school stats class overly complicated, and it's clear you don't actually understand math or poker all that well. You're literally convinced after a small sample of nano-stakes on a few sites that the most legit site in the world has patterns that you can't articulate despite having a "background" in both computing and math. Convenient how since you can't explain it, you end up with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Maybe if you were smarter and a bit better at computing you could crack the pattern and exploit the fact that you and you alone were able to figure out the differing frequencies in the pokerstars rng and use that to make millions .

^ This tbh.

 

[pokeherface]

I think they change alghoritms.I don`t think it`s natural random ...(just my opinion)

Please take a look today at the hole video 12.5 milion turnament at pokerstars and at minute 1:19:00 it`s a little bit crazy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTQVq93yBc&t=4834s

I really think whoever is questioning pokerstars on being fair or not is either a losing player or just doesn't understand poker
you chose about 1 hours worth of footage and chose only the hands where people are an extreme underdog and didn't count the people who were supposed to win won

 

[texasfoldem]

Lol this is just hilarious. You basically are saying you are smarter than everyone else and understand math and statistics better than everyone else but then you called my variance calculation that you'd learn in a basic high school stats class overly complicated, and it's clear you don't actually understand math or poker all that well. You're literally convinced after a small sample of nano-stakes on a few sites that the most legit site in the world has patterns that you can't articulate despite having a "background" in both computing and math. Convenient how since you can't explain it, you end up with an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Maybe if you were smarter and a bit better at computing you could crack the pattern and exploit the fact that you and you alone were able to figure out the differing frequencies in the pokerstars rng and use that to make millions .

Well I could apologize that I hurt your feelings in some completely indirect way but, hey, I gave you amusement, so I guess it isn't all that bad...

"You basically are saying you are smarter than everyone else and... blah blah blah..." ... but I guess you are kind of amusing too so we can mutually bask in the joy of each others intellectual prowess (of which you so prudently professed you were the winner of).

Maybe the next time you go off on a rant like your quoted comment, you try actually reading what people have written beforehand. In that way you will look less like a wounded animal and more like the (millionaire) intellectual you would like people to believe you are.

"...that you'd learn in a basic high school..." It is called a university. Smart people keep things simple. People like you complicate things. Dismissing pointless over-complexity is not a sign of stupidity or even an inability to understand the pointless over-complexity that is being paraded. It is simply the ability to place people like you (and the horse you drunkenly stumbled in on) in the category you belong in.

I see simplicity where you see complexity... go figure

 

[texasfoldem]

I really think whoever is questioning pokerstars on being fair or not is either a losing player or just doesn't understand poker
you chose about 1 hours worth of footage and chose only the hands where people are an extreme underdog and didn't count the people who were supposed to win won

I agree the video proves nothing. It is a complete waste of time like 99.99% of people who supposedly see problems with said company. They make a convenient group of red herrings to counter those who actually do recognize actual issues. I guess a conspiracy theorist could say such videos are even created by said company to keep the flow of red herrings coming. I highly doubt that is necessary though. I also highly doubt the company would ever need a shill either. Peoples' faith in said company's trustworthiness is all that is really required.

This is the word of the Lord...

Amen.

 

[LevySystem]

I see simplicity where you see complexity... go figure

Do you offer coaching? I'm intrigued

 

[andreypuch]

A good lesson, I was taught by one opponent: when I went to all in with a pair of AA's. He made a call and showed 88. On the table we saw A28, turn 6 and I was already beginning to be happy. And then came 8, and I went to smoke, losing my stack. It's better to think before you do something.

 

[hackmeplz]

People like you complicate things...

I see simplicity where you see complexity... go figure

I wasn't complicating things at all, I literally mentioned that most people learn it in high school stats (I don't know why you think I misspoke there, I meant high school, not university). And it's actually really simple, here's a quick refresher. Since poker hands generally are considered independent you can ignore the latter part: http://onlinestatbook.com/2/glossary/variance_sum_law.html

I never at any point claimed to be a millionaire or a genius (I'm neither), but I've played millions of hands on pokerstars, went over my database and saw the distributions, and funny enough they were never different from any of the other sites or what basic probability would indicate. I've also seen plenty of graphs of good winning players who lose money over 100k hands, and I still remember the statistics I learned in high school, which is really all the credibility I need to speak on this. Now why don't you go study the pokerstars distributions and see how you can play worse to take advantage of the extra straights and flushes they give out?

 

[DS3]

I am not much for conspiracy theory type of stuff, but I was feeling like something really shifted at ACR in the last couple of days.

I seemed to be consistently winning my SNG's, and now, all of a sudden I can't cash, no matter how I play. I don't feel like i have changed my game, but I sure am having trouble getting through. Today I flopped a set of J's on a QJ7 board. Of course it was possible one of the two opponents flopped a set of Q's, but I felt it was more likely AQ or KQ. Either way, all three players in the hand flopped a set. J, Q and 7. Amazing. I have played millions and millions of hands, and I do not believe I have ever seen 3 players all flop a set.

Maybe this is the beginning of the end.

God bless you all.

I hear you and texasfoldem

I periodically hit phases where it is as though someone has turned a switch against my play. As above, my play does not vary in any significant manner, my range stays tight and even my premium hands are crucified in ridiculous run outs....over and over.

I once stayed off one of the major sites for months because it was so demoralizing.

As for bringing in classic 'small sample size' argument - actually 18,000 is not too small a sample size when you have in fact played millions of hands and can identify a definite shift in expected outcomes. And its funny how 'sample size' is fit for one context and not another.

Phil Galfond just played an epic challenge match with Veni Vidi which was of course 'only' 25,000 hands. That has not stopped the poker world universally gushing over Galfond and declaring him GOAT. I hear little about sample size once Galfond pull it out of the bag.

I am not a conspiracy theorist either. However when you play tournaments day in and out with some of the same players and witness sun running by a select few on a consistent basis (as though in god mode when you know full well they cannot possibly be) then its difficult not to conclude that algorithms are weighted in manners and directions you cannot fathom.

 

[texasfoldem]

A good lesson, I was taught by one opponent: when I went to all in with a pair of AA's. He made a call and showed 88. On the table we saw A28, turn 6 and I was already beginning to be happy. And then came 8, and I went to smoke, losing my stack. It's better to think before you do something.

If it is a cash game you go all-in if you get the chance with AA. You will lose around 15% of the time and that is just how things go. Big picture is the important bit.

 

[TheGenera1]

Variance is a thing. I'm a solid winning player at 2nl. Here is a graph that you could use to show that it's "rigged".
55k hands and I made exactly negative $10

Here is the same graph over a larger sample.

All hands played at 2nl, mostly 6max zoom. As you can see, your sample size is just laughably small :/

 

[texasfoldem]

I wasn't complicating things at all, I literally mentioned that most people learn it in high school stats (I don't know why you think I misspoke there, I meant high school, not university). And it's actually really simple, here's a quick refresher. Since poker hands generally are considered independent you can ignore the latter part: http://onlinestatbook.com/2/glossary/variance_sum_law.html

I never at any point claimed to be a millionaire or a genius (I'm neither), but I've played millions of hands on pokerstars, went over my database and saw the distributions, and funny enough they were never different from any of the other sites or what basic probability would indicate. I've also seen plenty of graphs of good winning players who lose money over 100k hands, and I still remember the statistics I learned in high school, which is really all the credibility I need to speak on this. Now why don't you go study the pokerstars distributions and see how you can play worse to take advantage of the extra straights and flushes they give out?

OK OK, I was in an obnoxious mood. People don't tend to act too friendly when you imply they are saying they are smarter than "everyone". I accused you of not properly reading my post when I was the one who hadn't properly read yours.

The stats for PokerStars have mostly been fine. I checked them ages ago before any of the silly auto-lose things started at the beginning of April. I have spent many hours watching what is the likely outcome for every given hand in a dealt hand. What was happening on PokerStars did not appear plausible and it turns out it was a different set of probabilities than 888 (or the random table simulator).

I said I am suspicious, not 100% convinced of any manipulation. I am neither convinced by arguments that say that it is manipulated or those that say it is 100% legit. Obviously they are not going to rig the whole thing - that would be ridiculous. They have huge sums of money and a huge pool of people who can do things in such a way as to give PS almost 100% plausible deniability.

I know audits are usually worthless... there is no way people can prove that PokerStars never manipulate things to extract a few extra millions here and there. I saw a run of good hands getting beaten the majority of the time and they were usually being beaten by players with not the faintest clue as to what they were doing. The showdown hands did not correlate with reality.

Also, there appeared to be fake players entering the table regularly and gaining winning hands in a few minutes that should take several hours to get. I am yet to see this elusive persona appear in 888 yet. Have I had runs of good hands... well yes, but do I keep shoving all-in because I am guaranteed a full house each time at showdown? NO! Sit there and sift $10 off regs in the space off a few minutes, make a few snidey comments in chat just to convince everyone that I am not a bot and then leave? NO!